On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 10:39:39AM -0500, Michael Shulman wrote:
> On 10/6/06, John Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >deriving (Eq Foo, Ord Foo)
> >
> >instead of
> >
> >deriving (Eq, Ord) for Foo
>
> So what does
>
> newtype Foo a = Foo a
> newtype Bar b = Bar b
> class C a b
> deriving (C (F
On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 01:19:38PM +0100, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> | > I propose to add a top-level declaration on the form:
> | >
> | > 'deriving' qtycls 'for' qtycon
> | >
> | > which produces the same instance as a deriving clause in the
> | > declaration of the datatype or newtype would.
> |
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 08:58:28PM +0200, Bjorn Bringert wrote:
> - When deriving instances of multi-parameter type classes (again non-
> standard), the newtype for which the deriving is made must be the
> last argument to the class. If the syntax were "deriving (Class
> T1 ... Tn)", it might
It is encouraging that separate groups have come to similar approaches
wrt to more modular pattern match facilities (though perhaps it isn't all
that surprising, eg, my own musings on this topic started after one of the
early functional logic programming high periods, in the early 1990s, and
hav
